Turns out the JIRA wasn't the right place... but I filed an 'mlreq' form, and now waiting on infra. Someone on IRC #asf told me "expect some delays", so perhaps some of the people in charge of mailing list creation are on vacation or somesuch. EIther way, we should expect a new mailing list "some time soon". When it shows up I'll change the gerrit configuration and let everyone know so they can subscribe.
-Todd On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 4:40 PM, Todd Lipcon <[email protected]> wrote: > OK, I filed > https://issues.apache.org/jira/servicedesk/customer/portal/1/INFRA-11797 > to create a new reviews@ list > > On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 12:56 PM, Chris George <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> +1 for splitŠ I already have email filters to catch the gerrit stuff >> though, but I can see the reasoning behind splitting it. >> >> On 5/2/16, 1:40 PM, "Jean-Daniel Cryans" <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >I'm +0 with the split. >> > >> >On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 12:38 PM, Todd Lipcon <[email protected]> wrote: >> > >> >> Seems like there's a mix of opinions, but Adar and Mike wrote the >> >>longest >> >> replies and I don't feel too strongly, so let's go with a separate >> list. >> >> I'll give another few hours in case anyone wants to make a last plea >> for >> >> the other option, and then file a JIRA to create the new ML. >> >> >> >> -Todd >> >> >> >> On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 6:08 PM, Mike Percy <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> >> > My preference is for a separate list, but if others feel strongly the >> >> other >> >> > way then no big deal. >> >> > >> >> > Selfishly, I'd prefer reviews@ so that I can continue subscribing to >> >> JIRA >> >> > how I do now and still have the option of getting all of the review >> >> traffic >> >> > (separately). Other potential contributors may feel the same way >> >> (however, >> >> > it is more complex to have so many lists to subscribe to). >> >> > >> >> > I can see how it could be useful for someone to have a single search >> >> index >> >> > for both reviews and issues, but I'm not personally excited about it, >> >> since >> >> > I already get that through GMail as a subscriber. >> >> > >> >> > Mike >> >> > >> >> > On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 1:51 PM, Adar Dembo <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> > >> >> > > I can see how that could be useful, but it's not really what I need >> >> when >> >> > I >> >> > > search through a project's mailing list archives today. Bug reports >> >>are >> >> > > usually high-level enough that I can grok them, but implementation >> >> > details >> >> > > (i.e. code reviews) are too much and I'd prefer to exclude them. >> >> > > >> >> > > As for Kudu itself, well, I wouldn't use the mailing list archives >> >> > anyway, >> >> > > because I understand the details and also know how to go straight >> to >> >> the >> >> > > source of truth (i.e. JIRA for bug reports, gerrit for code >> >>reviews). >> >> > But I >> >> > > imagine folks less familiar with a project would feel the way I do: >> >>bug >> >> > > reports may be understandable, but code reviews are too detailed. >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 9:52 PM, Todd Lipcon <[email protected]> >> >> wrote: >> >> > > >> >> > > > On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 2:15 PM, Adar Dembo <[email protected]> >> >> wrote: >> >> > > > >> >> > > > > As you mentioned, my vote is for a new mailing list to capture >> >>code >> >> > > > > reviews. My arguments are: >> >> > > > > 1) It's more predictable for newcomers (JIRA to issues@, >> gerrit >> >>to >> >> > > > > reviews@, >> >> > > > > etc.). >> >> > > > > 2) It's friendlier to mailing list archivers, where the search >> >> tools >> >> > > > often >> >> > > > > aren't great and separation of issues from code reviews >> >>simplifies >> >> > > > 'manual' >> >> > > > > searching. >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > But if you're searching, wouldn't you want to see results from >> >>both >> >> > code >> >> > > > reviews and bug discussion, given a lot of bug details end up in >> >> commit >> >> > > > messages and code review conversation? >> >> > > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > > On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 11:19 AM, Jean-Daniel Cryans < >> >> > > > [email protected]> >> >> > > > > wrote: >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > > > I'd be in favor of using issues@, and only create reviews@ >> if >> >> > folks >> >> > > > > > complain it's still not good enough. >> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > J-D >> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 11:00 AM, Todd Lipcon >> >><[email protected] >> >> > >> >> > > > wrote: >> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > We discussed this a month or two ago but I've been >> >>delinquent >> >> in >> >> > > > > pushing >> >> > > > > > > this forward. We all seemed to agree that it would be good >> >>to >> >> > move >> >> > > > the >> >> > > > > > > gerrit traffic off of dev@ so that the list is easier to >> >> > subscribe >> >> > > > to >> >> > > > > > and >> >> > > > > > > follow for newcomers who might not be interested in every >> >> > revision >> >> > > of >> >> > > > > > every >> >> > > > > > > patch in flight (100+ emails/week). But, we didn't quite >> >>settle >> >> > > where >> >> > > > > to >> >> > > > > > > move it *to*. >> >> > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > There were two options: >> >> > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > 1) use the existing issues@ list >> >> > > > > > > 2) use a new reviews@ list >> >> > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > My preference is towards using issues@ because oftentimes >> >>when >> >> > > > someone >> >> > > > > > is >> >> > > > > > > fixing a bug or making a small improvement, they don't >> >> > necessarily >> >> > > > > > create a >> >> > > > > > > new JIRA. So, I'm not sure why someone would want to >> >>subscribe >> >> to >> >> > > > just >> >> > > > > > JIRA >> >> > > > > > > but not gerrit (or vice versa). Given that Gerrit already >> >> > provides >> >> > > an >> >> > > > > > easy >> >> > > > > > > filtering mechanism (eg 'kudu-cr' in the subject line) >> >>people >> >> can >> >> > > > > always >> >> > > > > > > separate them back out. >> >> > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > Adar mentioned that he prefers reviews@ to be more >> >> 'consistent', >> >> > > > > though >> >> > > > > > > I'll let him pipe up with his rationale. >> >> > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > I don't think we need a formal vote, but opinions >> solicited! >> >> > Would >> >> > > be >> >> > > > > > great >> >> > > > > > > to wrap this up this week so we can report the progress >> >>back on >> >> > our >> >> > > > > > > upcoming podling report. >> >> > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > -Todd >> >> > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > > -- >> >> > > > Todd Lipcon >> >> > > > Software Engineer, Cloudera >> >> > > > >> >> > > >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Todd Lipcon >> >> Software Engineer, Cloudera >> >> >> >> > > > -- > Todd Lipcon > Software Engineer, Cloudera > -- Todd Lipcon Software Engineer, Cloudera
